Figures of the two Lower Reliefs on the Parsvanatha Temple at Khajuraho

SR No.: 250093
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: Klaus Bruhn
Publisher: Z_Vijay_Vallabh_suri_Smarak_Granth_012060.pdf
Publication Year: 1956
Total Pages: 30
Language: English
Classification: Article & Tirth
File Size: 4 MB

Page 3

BRUHN: KHAJURAHO
individuality (see below). Figures provided with a question mark m a y have individuality, but no identification was possible. The Roman numbers refer to certain types of sculptures (type with Siva-iconography, type characterized by lotus and citron, and so on). As some of the types are of a very doubtful character and as the assignment to a type is often questionable, we might have marked many figures with a '?' or '0' as well as with a number. On the other hand in many cases 'I' and 'II' means almost the same as 'Śiva' and 'Vişnu', and only because of the gradual transition to less and less distinct Sivas and Visņus which makes a decision often difficult the names are always avoided. Some figures, however, are explained by a name, not because of especially correct iconography but because transitional figures are not represented so that it was not necessary to introduce a special 'type'.
In the 'Statistics' the members of the types are listed. In the case of types I and II those figures are mentioned first which bear the greatest resemblance with these gods, and the figures with few 'iconograms' peculiar to them are enumerated later. By 'iconogram' (in opposition to a mere attribute) I mean any feature (mudra, asana, attribute etc.) which identifies a being either as an individual strictly speaking (e.g. Rṣabha generally to be recognized by the hair-locks) or as a member of an individual group (e.g. tirthamkaras largely to be recognized by their nudity). As some iconograms found with the sculptures of our temple (lotus, 'padmasarpa', snake, citron) have spread from certain figures to others they cannot, in any context, be taken as significant. They appear along with statues to whom they originally do not belong (Siva and Visnu with citron) or are found isolated (couple with 'padmasarpa' as sole attribute), and they lose, accordingly, their significance even in the proper context (lotus along with cakra gives no sufficient evidence that the figure is actually meant to be Visņu). Especially figures with such iconograms are defined by "?', '0' or are enumerated at the end of the lists for type I and II.
For terms not explained here refer to Notes.
9